Here's how Rex Parker reacted:
I have a question about the clue on TRANSGENDER, though (31A: Taking on a new identity, in a way). First, the part of speech seems off, but let's just say that the clue is being used essentially adjectivally ... OK, fine. The bigger issue is ... is that what TRANSGENDER is? It's not a makeover. It's not "The New You." It's just ... you. You with a gender expression that is different from the one that conventionally corresponds with your sex at birth. I mean, you might come out as TRANSGENDER, and coming out is a kind of "taking on a new identity." But lots of people just *are* TRANSGENDER. It's not a new identity. It's ... their identity. Also, something about the cluing makes being TRANSGENDER seem like dyeing your hair or getting really into cycling or something. I dunno. It's not an offensive clue, and I recognize the trickiness of being accurate and concise and (ideally) clever while cluing a term about which people are understandably sensitive. Still, this one missed a little, for me.Rex is more forgiving than I am, but my harshness is grounded in my understanding of what the NYT aims to be and my awareness of the extreme consequences that have lately befallen people who've said one thing the wrong way. (I'm thinking of Roseanne and Samantha Bee, but I acknowledge a big difference in that both of them fully intended to be really mean and insulting to a particular individual.)
Posts
38 comments:
transubstantiation was too many letters.
Et tu, NYT?
transubstantiation was too many letters.
Not if they do that Thursday trick of packing several letters in one square.
Finished before you pubbed an answer.
I'm just grateful the answer wasn't ALOE, ALOU or ALEE.
So if I was born a boy, have a penis and suddenly at the age of 55 declare that I am actually a woman, I have not, in a way, taken on a new identity? I think my wife and kids might beg to differ! I think Caitlyn Jenner could be said (fairly) to have taken on a new identity.
The Times is out of money. They employ a bunch of ignorant 20 somethings. No copy editors to make sure the SJW line is toed
the educated elite
The (mis)educated elite = Orwell's absurdity-believing intellectuals.
Why would you deviate
Deviants gotta deviate.
If you google "bruce jenner" and "new identity" you will find multiple uses of that concept in the MSM. OTOH, my understanding is that acceptable LGBTIQ definitions/grammatical usages shift dramatically about every six months or so, so that if you are not up to the date on the latest acceptable usages you can be called transphobic. Its part of the effort to get everyone to be more tolerant.
What are the chances of all these gender identity nitpickers being persuaded to STFU?
What's the lead time on the NYT crossword? It's possible this one was already in the pipeline before the latest missive came down from the commissar.
A transgander is a former goose.
The clue should have been "bad wiring."
Some women have penises.
The NYT dating guide.
Transgender identifies an incongruity between sex and gender (e.g. sexual orientation). We do not know if classes in the transgender spectrum are intrinsic or progressive. By definition, transgender refers to a transitioning or diverging gender identity (e.g. lifestyle) from a person's biological sex.
A generational misunderstanding. Readers of the Times are far more conservative in gender politics than you would imagine.
These discussions are all clues for a word in the bigger meta-puzzle of Kulturkampf.
Spoiler alert: the word is "PRECIOSITY."
botches the understanding of transgenderism
Botches?? A post operation problem as well.
Crossword puzzle clues have long been among the most insidious means of oppression deployed by the cishet patriarchy. Note the binary bias in the whole concept of rigidly vertical and horizontal boxes.
I can never figure out if transgender people are (perhaps gradually) discovering their true gender identity, something about which they really have no choice, or they are freely exploring genders, with the option of changing from time to time. If the main underlying discovery is that nature is much more ambiguous and fluid than a dichotomy would imply, then there may be plenty of room for at least some people to keep on changing, free to keep choosing because nature doesn't decide.
What about sexual orientation? Discovered or (at least to some degree) created or explored?
I don't question an individual's freedom to perceive themself the way they want.
I just want to know why one's personal opinion has legal standing.
"Henry said...
transubstantiation was too many letters."
And freak has too few
Part of me says, this is nothing new, go look at almost anything by Hieronymus Bosch.
Part of me says, who really cares about your gender/sexual/racial/whatever identity? I mean, really? We are born, we live, we die; we hunger and thirst, we mourn and lust; we each possess either Tab A or Slot B; who the hell cares what you do, so long as you don't hurt others?
Foregoing is the full Libertarian principle. If you don't like it, I have others.
"It's not a makeover." Except that it typically involves gruesome surgery and medication.
"It's not a new identity." Except that it involves a radical change in one's relations with family and friends.
In other news, 2+2=5.
Anyway, to make identity a matter of pure subjectivity, if-I-say-so, is the very embodiment of philosophical insanity.
I can't bring myself to appreciate the use of "gender" when speaking of "sex" in plants and animals. Gender to me means "kind" that refers to fiction vs. non-fiction, etc., so using it to refer to biological sex is too non-specific.
Wouldn't it be expected to adhere to the strict understanding that prevails today among the educated elite that a transgender person has had a consistent gender identity that just never matched the body he or she was born with? In that view, transgender" isn't a "new identity." Why would you deviate from that understanding for the sake of a crossword clue?
Perhaps the people who make and do the NYT crossword constitute a sub-demographic of the general NYT readership, one that skews more toward educated (no scare quotes) persons than the general subscriber population of "educated elite" clever-sillies.
There could be people, even among NYT subscribers (and staffers?!), who have too much intelligence and too much self-respect to punctiliously observe the latest shibboleths of a clever-silly majority. Mr. Parker notwithstanding.
I think they meant a new public identity. If someone who has presented as a male now presents as a female, she is taking on a new identity to the world. Is your identity what you are, or how you are seen? A psychologist and a sociologist may have different answers.
Is your identity what you are, or how you are seen?
Both. Diversity of color and orientation (e.g. bisexual) require a presentation in context. So, when a transgender/bisexual feels feminine (i.e. a male preference), the presentation will be with a feminine chic. When a transgender/bisexual feels masculine (i.e. a female preference), the presentation will be with a masculine bravado. Others in the transgender spectrum are less liberal and ostensibly more "stable".
Anyway, to make identity a matter of pure subjectivity, if-I-say-so, is the very embodiment of philosophical insanity.
You obviously didn't get the memo. Post-modern definitions of gender may vary from one monumental mass of synapses to another. Global warming is the only thing now regarded by a majority of monumental masse of synapses as actually factual and so, unchangeable.
I laughed aloud when I read "what the NYT aims to be" because they aim to be the arbiter of political correctness, which requires them to believe and enunciate completely contradictory statements one after another, day after day after day. Good luck being satisfied with their performance of Social Justice Warrior Kabuki Dance Theater for their readers.
I really wish our society could find a way to treat trans people with respect that didn't involve everyone having to play make believe.
The only acceptable clue is "better than cisgender".
Interesting, we are told to accept our bodies as they are - with or without a thigh gap...
unless it is our sex. THEN we are told that rejecting our own biological sex is not only NOT problematic but something to be confirmed and celebrated.
Vault
I can treat transpeople with civility and the same compassion I would have for any person suffering from a disability.
That is not an obligation that I fake reality and erase what it means to be a women for them.
find a way to treat trans people with respect
Tolerance, not normalization. Unfortunately, political congruence ("=") is a doctrine of selective exclusion adopted by the Pro-Choice cult. There are two moral axioms: individual dignity and intrinsic value, then reconcile with Natural and personal imperatives, to realize principles that are internally, externally, and mutually consistent.
Well, if we think of identity in terms of name and other driver's license-type info, try saying "Bruce Jenner" and enjoy the fireworks...
I remember in the 70's, the gay lobby insisted, rabidly, that being gay was 100% a choice. This was because the APA still considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder. If it's a choice, it can't be a disorder, right? The APA bought it and reclassified it. And as soon as that happened, the narrative was reversed 180 degrees overnight, because the old narrative was no longer useful to their political aims.
Ann fails to see how "the strict understanding that prevails today" can be, and will be, completely different tomorrow if the Left decides the reverse will be more politically useful. There will always be enough suckers for whom history always starts anew each morning.
And not only will it be 100% different tomorrow, if you dont update instantly, you will be branded a phobe. Yes, you, Ann. So make sure you keep reading the Times. THEY will tell you what today's Truth is. The fact that you're questioning what they said today can only get you branded as a Deplorable.
Post a Comment